TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:While I like it as an objective, I don't think a libertarian society is possible for a number of reasons, one of which is that it requires a distribution of intelligence among the populace that doesn't exist. However, in such a society, since people would be responsible for their actions, those without criminal designs would want some kind of "insurance" for protection against financial ruin when something bad or unintended happens while using a gun. In that context, insurance companies would require some kind of training before issuing a policy to a gun owner. No one would be required to get such training, but there would be an incentive to do so, since appearing in court without it would contribute to a presumption of negligence.

How is a libertarian society going to contribute to a de facto requirement for gun-owner liability insurance? Insurance doesn't protect against people being negligent and/or stupid. i.e. does insurance or liability or consequences prevent drunk driving (some...but it still happens a LOT). The basic idea is that people must be responsible for their own actions and not expect others to take care of them. Many of us will help through many ways, but the sense of entitlement must go.

I do agree that a Libertarian society is not likely because we've spent at least two generations conditioning people to not take responsibility for their actions and that they are entitled to everything. That should not keep us from fighting for freedom and pushing back. If the world doesn't blow apart, we could still push the ball back down the field in sight of the goal line.

VMI77 wrote:Mentalarson, have you read The Servile State, by Hillaire Belloc?

Nope. Just added to my wish list in Amazon. Care to disclose a few key concepts that triggered your question?

While a baseline of manners and morality was shared by the founders, they tended to line up with Libertarian views.
For example, "If it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg, what matter is it to me." --Ben Franklin (pretty sure).

OR "My freedom to wave my fists ends where your nose begins."
...feel free to bitch about things, but leave me and my stuff alone.

I am a Conservative Christian, but I think I would be completely satisfied with a Libertarian country and leadership.

We're going to spend a LOT of time yelling at each other if we talk about morality and it's place in government or society so maybe we should drill into the Constitution and understand the wisdom is has to offer. Since a lot of it has it's roots in a Judeo-Christian world view it works for Conservatives, but it's also a very Libertarian document, and it was our founder's intent to have just enough structure to keep the wheels on....but not create a power magnet that attracts rats.

"The Road to Surfdom" completely lays bare the folly of central planning and emphasizes the power of individual liberty so we can all pretty much agree that big government is bad and local government are more likely to be held accountable for their actions.

Where I part company with Libertarians is the false concept that "you cannot legislate morality" then lumping a whole bunch of things into the morality bucket. Most of the laws the govern civilized society are rooted in basic morality, but the debate heats up when people try to discern where the line is.

Abortion is a more intense example. Most folks that are anti-abortion truly believe that an unborn baby is a person in an early stage of life. "The right to life" is not just a slogan but a deeply held belief that those small people are also endowed with inalienable rights that should not be infringed. Though this is debated in the morality arena, a Libertarian can also be in favor of protecting the rights of an unborn person. Ben Franklin's quote could be extended to, "A woman's right to choose ends where a baby's life begins." While I do not expect abortion to be outlawed in the U.S. I would really like to stop tax payer funding of it. That is also a libertarian view...that people should be responsible for themselves. If people want to contribute to Planned Parenthood, have at it, but don't compel me to pay to kill little people....that disgusts me.

I'm not a fan of the nanny state, and I fear a world ruled by the "Participation Trophy" generation where excellence is discouraged and mediocrity is celebrated.

There is a case to be made for legalizing drugs as part of a sweeping shift of increased rights AND responsibilities.
As a society we must embrace the idea that "You can take whatever drugs you want, but if you fry your brain, it's your problem."

However, most folks talking about it these days focus on the first part only and will still expect you and I to pay for them to sit and stare at the walls in a drug-induced haze or pay fir their treatment so they can hold down a job.

I won't support the freedom without requiring people taking responsibility for their actions.
I think we've got to sell it as a package deal.

Every law abiding citizen should own a gun (or 5) AND they should (but not be required to) learn the 4 firearms safety rules and seek training and practice that is equal to the task for which they plan to use the weapon. i.e. daily carry, hunting, etc.
A drunk ignorant dumb-ass shooting at things with no regard for what is on the other side of the trees a couple hundred yards away doesn't do any of us any favors. If said dumb-ass does harm to another or is acting in a negligent way that could easily do harm to others, they should get a nasty spankin'

With regard to the second; every man's house is deemed, by the law, to be his castle; and the law, while it invests him with the power, enjoins on him the duty, of the commanding officer. "Every man's house is his castle," says my Lord Coke, in one of his reports, "and he ought to keep and defend it at his peril; and if any one be robbed in it, it shall be esteemed his own default and negligence." For this reason, one may assemble people together in order to protect and defend his house.
--Founder/Signer: James Wilson

Not only is it our right, but it's our duty to defend our own homes.

v-rog wrote:Whatever is occurring, and hopefully we do have a variety of opinions so we can explain our views, we need to be on our best behavior. The world is watching

I live in WA and rapidly cutting strings and paying off debt so we can move to NE Texas. WA has lots of good folks, but it's ruled by a cluster of brain dead big-government folks around Seattle...think Austin vs rest of the state.
REF: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=61664" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is so much anti-gun misinformation it's tough to take it without throwing fits.
There are rare fits of journalism that can take the edge off...
http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/pie ... cide-rates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One key of historically great generals is they pick the field of battle. As much as possible they fight the enemy on their "home field". We are fighting the battle on the media's terms calling black rifles "assault weapons" and distancing this discussion from normal people by mainly referencing the 2nd Amendment. (I do it too, but we're losing ground.)

For example, Peter Schiff and Ted Nugent had a discussion (See YouTube) in which Schiff mentioned that this should be a Women's issue.
Specifically a 3hr self defense class does not prepare a woman to defend herself against a determined rapist. However, a Glock in her purse and some decent training will enable her to survive the confrontation or prevent the attack.

I think we need to use phrases like, "I believe in my right to protect myself and my family" or "I believe in the right to self-defense" or other things that make the discussion more personal.

What made our government different is that all over the world governments trample on rights. The "exception" is that our government committed to respecting basic individual rights.